Emily Wilson, Editor-in-chief, NewScientist, London, England

Homepage (Science Journalists)
Twitter
Wikipedia
Who’s Who at NewScientist

Third email: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 @10:22 AM

Hi Emily,

I have had a bit of concurrence with Peebles’ point of view; in a note this morning, Dan Hooper, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Center for Particle Astrophysics, Batavia, and University of Chicago, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics and Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, agrees with him.

How about NS writing an article, titled: “We do not know what happens before the first trillionth of a second.” “Peebles is right. We have no theory of the beginning.” “So we think we know everything. Such arrogance.”

Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

PS. At the very least we can learn the differences between picosecond (10⁻¹²), femtosecond (10⁻¹⁵), attosecond (10⁻¹⁸), zeptosecond (10⁻²¹) and yoctosecond (10⁻²⁴) . Then we can kick the butts of the national institutes for standards to name six groups of fractions from that yoctosecond to the the PlanckSecond (10⁻⁴⁴), StoneySecond (10⁻⁴⁵), or LemaitreSecond (also a primordial second). -BEC

Second email: May 25, 2021, 12:01 PM

Hi Emily,

As I said in my comment on your Twitter post, “Congratulations on the nine PPAAwards.”

2019 Nobel laureate, James Peebles, says that we do not have a theory of the beginning of the universe (6th paragraph). That is quite a challenge for all those who follow Hawking and Guth. After thinking about it, I had to acknowledge that our 202 notations did not constitute a theory; it is about 1000 highly-related numbers, but it doesn’t address the look and feel of the first instance. So, I’ve outlined it and today, I asked Prof. Dr. James Peebles, “Does it qualify as a theory even if it is wrong?”

If you are interested, I’ll let you know what he says (if anything at all).

Can we get a discussion going about Peeble’s comment, “It’s very unfortunate that one thinks of the beginning whereas in fact, we have no good theory of such a thing as the beginning.”

Thanks, Emily.

Warmly,

Bruce

References:  https://81018.com/starts/
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-cosmologist-lonely-big-theory.html (6th paragraph)

Tweet: May 25, 2021: Congratulations! 9 PPAAwards awards! 

Now, let’s get back to work!

Is what Nobel 2019 James Peebles says about our theories of the beginning true? https://81018.com/Peebles/

Could this modest article qualify as a theory? https://81018.com/starts/ Thanks. -Bruce

First email: Mar 12, 2021, 7:52 AM

RE: Nobody seems to think pi is a fundamental equation for cosmology. Do you?

Hi Emily,

How does pi (π) shape our Universe? Is it there in the first instant?

I believe so and therefore we have a “simple” cold start whereby the numbers show that it readily becomes hot enough for the Quark-Gluon processes within less than a microsecond: https://81018.com/challenge

My story of those processes then continues here: https://81018.com/instance/

Let’s entertain new ideas. The old ones have stymied progress for over 50 years.

Thanks.
Most sincerely,

Bruce

****************